"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Thread 3

[MissScarletInTheBallroom]

Starting a new thread so I can respond to @suggestionsplease1 's most recent post.

Why do you want male sex offenders to have access to male toilets?

Because they're female, where else would they go?

And there are not 500,000-1 million of them walking around.

I don't understand what you think is false about my question. You can't allow special men with transgender identities access to women's single sex spaces and keep all other men out. If you're letting your nice friends in you're also letting in any other man who wants to be in there for any reason. You understand this, right?

Letting male people use women's single sex spaces on a self ID basis means you are giving tacit permission for any man to use any women's single sex space at any time and for any reason.

To repeat what I have said before, there is absolutely no evidence of increased risk to women as a result of gender self-ID processes. You are talking about speculative potential, but you have zero empirical evidence.

Are you not interested in the facts?

the fact is that UK law disagrees with you.

That's not a fact, it's a lie identifying as a fact.

An example of a fact is "trans identifying men have been convicted of committing violent sexual offences against women and children in the UK".

Can you explain why you think we should open up all women's spaces to any man who wants access?

Even if that were true (it isn't), it doesn't matter.

There's nothing that justifies trans identifying men getting special privileges and entry into women spaces.

Aren’t you?
It is a fact that the design of toilets becomes private when it is not single sex. This means it’s less safe for all but particularly women, girls, boys and those medically vulnerable.

I have lots of empirical evidence about toilets.
It’s very time consuming and depressing to collate.

Perhaps @suggestionsplease1 is actually getting at something else when s/he says that there is no evidence of self ID increasing risks to women and girls' safety.

It's not actually self ID that is the issue, it is men in women's spaces that increases the risk to women and girls' safety. This doesn't technically have anything to do with self ID because no one is checking IDs on toilet doors.

In the UK, the Supreme Court has confirmed that a man having a silly piece of paper saying he is a woman should have no impact on whether he is allowed in women's spaces or not. This principle should hold, regardless of how easy or difficult it is to get that piece of paper.

In reality, countries which allow a man to get a silly piece of paper very easily are also going to be the same countries which allow him to use women's spaces whether he has that silly piece of paper of not. With such disregard for women, I cannot imagine they are scrupulously collecting data recording the impact of their policies for women.

But if women’s toilets are so full of female sexy offenders, wouldnt males with a trans identity be unsafe? If women’s toilets are so dangerous, surely it would be wisest if males with a trans identity used the make toilets. I mean, if sharing spaces either makes is fine for women, surely it’s even safer for males with a trans identity right?

MissScarletInTheBallroom to ChatGPT:

Have there been any recorded instances of a cisgender woman sexually assaulting another woman in women's toilets in the UK?

ChatGPT to MissScarletInTheBallroom:

There are no publicly documented cases in the UK of a cisgender woman (someone assigned female at birth and identifying as a woman) sexually assaulting another woman in a women’s toilet. Such incidents appear to be extremely rare or simply not reported in accessible legal or media records.

---

🔍 What the evidence shows

1. Sexual violence in female toilets in the UK has typically involved individuals assigned male at birth, including cases where they identified as female (i.e. trans women or cases where perpetrators claimed a gender change).
2. For example, in Birmingham New Street station in March 2022, a man assaulted a woman in the female toilets after entering them disguised as female; he was convicted and imprisoned.
3. Other UK-related incidents involved trans prisoners assigned male at birth who assaulted women in custody settings (e.g., Karen White in a women's prison, Isla Bryson before transition)—but again, not cisgender women in public women’s facilities.
4. The Crown Prosecution Service toolkit clarifies that sexual abuse between women does occur—but it does not list any recorded case involving a cisgender woman attacking another woman in a female restroom area.
5. Data on public sexual assault statistics (including perpetrators’ sex or gender) are limited; Freedom of Information responses indicate no public dataset tracking sexual assault specifically in women’s restrooms by cis women or transgender individuals.

---

⚖️ Key Legal Distinctions

Under UK law (Sexual Offences Act 2003), only someone with a penis can be charged with rape; women, whether cis or trans, can only be charged with sexual assault or causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent .

While sexual violence between women does happen, it is generally more underreported due to social stigma, under-recognition, or reluctance to approach law enforcement . But this does not mean there are recorded cases involving cisgender women in women’s toilets.

---

✅ Summary Table

Scenario Recorded in UK?

Cisgender woman assaulting another woman in a public women’s toilet No known cases
Male-assigned-at-birth person (including those identifying female) assaulting woman in women’s toilet Yes, documented cases
Sexual assault between women (e.g. within relationships, in private settings) Yes, but typically not public restroom cases

---

🧠 Why You Might Not Find Documented Cases

Sexual violence between women is historically invisible in mainstream discourse and research, which may lead to underreporting or misclassification.

Public restroom assaults are rare compared to other settings, and offenses by cisgender women in such spaces may go unreported or unpublicized.

Media, legal, and public data sources—as of mid‑2025—contain no evidence of cisgender women committing this specific type of offence in UK women’s toilets.

---

If You're Exploring This Topic Further

Consider that lack of evidence doesn’t equal proof of absolute non‑occurrence, but given extensive media and legal scrutiny of restroom safety, any high‑profile instance would likely have been reported.

Support or antidepress/statistical studies on female-perpetrated sexual violence may provide context—though they rarely focus on public lavatories.

If you’re seeking academic or victim‑advocacy perspectives, reports on sexual violence dynamics between women (outside restrooms) may offer broader insight.

---

🏁 Final Word

There is no verifiable or reported instance in the UK of a cisgender woman sexually assaulting another woman in a women’s toilet. The cases that have occurred in that setting have involved individuals assigned male at birth, including those identifying or presenting as female.

If you have specific inci
dents or references in mind, I can research those further—just let me know!

These, perhaps, are the worst group, but it must be remembered that for every Commander Waterford, there’s a Serena Joy standing behind him, ready to pin a handmaiden down as her husband rapes her.

So much this.

@suggestionsplease1 you have said upthread that you think that the trans women in women's prisons have used self ID to access women in prison yet don't seem to join the dots to understand that men may do the same to access women in other single sex spaces.

And that we have the protection of single sex spaces precisely to stop the bad actors whether they have true trans identities or otherwise from gaining easy access to women.

Don't you see what you are doing to women when you dismiss the needs of actual women in favour of a group of males some of whom you acknowledge use this identity to deliberately access women in what should be single sex spaces?

Haha ChatGTP appears to be peaking.

⚖️ Key Legal Distinctions

Under UK law (Sexual Offences Act 2003), only someone with a penis can be charged with rape; women, whether cis or trans, can only be charged with sexual assault or causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent.

Here, for example, ChatGTP appears to be using the term "women" to mean women or trans men.

Hang on, will check.

ChatGPT to MissScarletInTheBallroom:

Final Clarification on the Line You Quoted

When I said:

> “Women, whether cis or trans, can only be charged with sexual assault or causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent…”

That was too imprecise. Here's a more accurate phrasing:

> “Individuals without a penis — including cisgender women, trans men without a penis, and others assigned female at birth — cannot be charged with rape under Section 1, but can be charged with other serious sexual offences. Trans women who retain a penis can legally commit rape under this section.”

Thank you for catching that — it's an important legal and ethical nuance.

Why don't men recognise that some men want to walk around in dresses and/or wear lipstick and/or call themselves a female name and welcome them into male facilities?
Males need to be more inclusive, it's not a female problem and we don't have to solve it.

This is a great question. What's in it for us?
Shame you never got an answer

Why do you want to give some males, and not others, access to single-sex spaces?

You can't give some males and not others access though. I don't mean legally, but practically. So in practice she wants to give all males access.

I can answer the ‘what’s in it for us’ question. One theory is if there are more people around, then the good men will protect the women from the bad men, and men may hear the moment of collapse if a woman collapses in a fully enclosed sound resistant unisex cubicle and come and rescue her.

However this fails any scrutiny.

There is no evidence that self id doesn’t add to risk for women … there is a lack of evidence , and in some cases a lack of common sense also

Yeah....nah.

(I have the evidence as well that this is not correct).

When the Good Law Project mentioned they were adding the Health & Safety executive to their complaint I did think it would be interesting how they justify this.

I would love to see their evidence. I am trying to find a solution for everyone.

I've already referenced the potential problems for women that could arise out of attempts at implementing policy. Namely that there could be harassment of women that appear more masculine and invasions of their privacy.

The Supreme Court also incredibly outlined scenarios where transmen (females in GC understanding) could be banned from using both male toilets as they are not male biological sex, and female toilets if they look too masculine, potentially leaving them with no facilities to use. Although I believe the Supreme Court suggested that option should be available to them they will understandably feel incredibly nervous now about using either men's or women's toilets as the Supreme Court has said they could be barred from both options. This is an incredibly harmful impact on born females.

Although my position clearly appears out of step on Mumsnet FWR, it is in line with the approaches of the best countries in the world for women, in highly respected international comparator tables. The top countries in the world for women who have solid track records over decades of strong performance for women have seen fit to make this decision - after so many years of so many good decisions for women why do you suddenly think that these countries are suddenly now making a bad decision for decision? There is no evidence whatsoever that since their implementation of gender self ID there has been any harm to women.

In general the better a country performs for its most vulnerable members, the better it also performs for women; that is what these countries are showing. And when a country starts dissembling rights for its most vulnerable populations, sure enough women are just a little bit further down the line of being negatively impacted themselves. Trump's America will be a worked example of this in the next few years.